Every state has two U.S. senators, chosen by voters, but the system didn't always work this way. Before 1913, senators were elected by state legislatures, not the public, until the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution shifted power into the hands of the American electorate.
Gage Skidmore/Flickr
What's amazing is how many Republicans want to shift the power back the other way, taking control away from voters and giving it back to state lawmakers. Among them is Rep. Jeff Flake (R), a U.S. Senate candidate in Arizona this year.
Flake advocated additional deep cuts in taxes and spending and the wholesale repeal of federal regulations. He said he opposed any restrictions on guns, ammunition or magazines, despite a string of recent shootings. He also said he favored eliminating both the federal Department of Energy and the Department of Education. He even said he preferred having state legislatures appoint U.S. Senators instead of the voters, a system that changed in 1912 with the adoption of the 17th Amendment.
Flake's office later confirmed that the congressman pushed for repeal, and "has not introduced or supported bills on this issue," but nevertheless believes the power to elect senators should be taken away from American voters.
He's not alone. Roll Call reports today that other Republican U.S. Senate candidates, including Michigan's Pete Hoekstra, Indiana's Richard Mourdock, and Missouri's Todd Akin are all on board with shifting power from voters to state legislatures.
If this sounds vaguely familiar, there's a reason -- in 2010, all kinds of far-right Republican candidates endorsed repeal of the 17th Amendment, and some even won anyway. Marc Ambinder reported at the time that the position has "become a part of the Tea Party orthodoxy."
What in the world are these people talking about? Apparently, the far-right believes that Congress will give states more power -- and shrink federal power in the process -- if the entire Senate is made up of officials beholden to state legislatures, not voters.
But the argument is not without irony -- we have Tea Partiers who claim to want "the American people" to have more power over their government arguing that "the American people" shouldn't even have the ability to elect their own senators.
Update: For more background on this, David Gans had a terrific item back in 2010 on the constitutional history. It's worth your time (thanks to D.P. for the tip).
Leave a Comment:
Flake, Mourdock, Hoekstra. What do these guys all have in common? The only way they're ever going to be Senators is if they were appointed by their Republican buddies in the legislature. In an election, particularly this year when they get to run with Willard the Wanker and Eddie Munster on top of the ticket, they're going to LOSE.
Appoint senators, disenfranchise voters - the only ways Republicans will ever be a majority.
Flake is an apt name for this flake.Why does'nt he just quit pussy footing around and say it,he want's people like the Koch bros.and Sheldod Addleson to chose the President.Just like they're trying to do now through the bogus citizen's united ruling.
Anything that makes it easier for Republicans to get "elected". Of course, they'll want the 17th amendment back when a majority of state legislatures are Democratic controlled....
or it could be that the Congress prior to this one was the oldest in our nation's history and in terms of both continuous service and age. Other than tea party Republican challenges, it's virtually impossible for a Senator to lose their seat. Many even plan to hand it down to their children or other family members. It's our own aristocracy. Neither senility, nor debilitating illness, nor approaching death, will get most senators to give up their seat.
It's not even limited to the Senate, though it is certainly more prevalent there.
John Dingell and his father have represented the same Congressional district for 80 straight years, as impossible as that is to believe!
With due respect to the American voter, the original system was set up so that voters elected representatives (the House) and the state legislatures elected senators. It was intended to create a balance of power between the interests of the people and the interests of the states, which are not always aligned.
There is an argument that the 17th amendment upset this balance and should be repealed. Granted, these people are not articulating that argument, but this idea is not coming out of left field (or right field if you prefer).
Um, actually, yeah, it is.
The Founders did a lot of stuff that later generations deemed a mistake and decided to fix.
The Founders didn't want there to be political parties and thought it made perfect sense for the person who got the second most votes to be Vice President. Experience taught us that parties happen and regardless, making a sitting president's worst political enemy his successor-in-waiting and president of the Senate was a Really Bad Idea. But yeah, it makes total sense to demand the repeal of the 12th Amendment.
The Founders thought slavery would just fade away by itself. Eli Whitney, three generations of people who died in slavery and a half a million people killed in a Civil War found this not to be the case. So far, at least, no one's calling for the repeal of the 13th Amendment.
Most of the Founders--and not just the ones who owned slaves--would have been appalled at the idea of blacks having civil rights and being allowed to vote. Nor did they think the first ten amendments applied to the states. Goodness me, what an upsetting idea. Clearly we've destroyed the balance intended by the Founders, so we should stop being all demagogic and have a serious discussion about repealing the Fourteenth and the Fifteenth Amendments.
That 24th Amendment abolishing poll taxes is a bit contrary to the Founders intent as well. They really only wanted the "right sort," dontcha see, voting.
The Founders wanted direct taxes to come through the states -- okay, wait, the 16th is already on the Teanut hit list.
The Founders would have been appalled at the idea of women voting and 18 year old women? Yeah, the 19th and 26th have got to go.
I mean, why can't we have a serious discussion about these things without people getting all umbragee about their rights being diminished by people who can't win elections honestly anymore?
I didn't say any of that. Nor do I support the repeal of the 17th.
And quite frankly, your response belies your opening denial.
John, I see your point. I do feel the previous situation (state legislature elects senators) is a relic from earlier times. In today's world, we have the right to expect every citizen to be politically aware and so the 17th is a perfectly reasonable amendment. Personally I can't imagine how the idea of repealing it could possibly gain any traction among the populace - it seems utterly repugnant to me. Makes me feel more confident that the more the public becomes aware of the depth of the Tea Party's foolishness and how their policies would be a net negative, the more we can expect to see them marginalized.
I suppose this is irrespective of the sheer anti-democratic nature of equal representation in the Senate: why should Wyoming (or Delaware) have as many votes as California (which has some 70 times the population of Wyoming)? I give the tea party credit for recognizing that constitutional rules of the game shape outcomes; I reject utterly the changes they would want to make: there are much more significant changes that should be made to our rather defective Constitution.
or the limitation in the total number of House members too?
Repealing the amendment will insure that the current power structure is maintained and not subject to all these new minority voters that are gaining in population. This is a subtle form of racism similar to Jim Crow laws. Except this would be in the US Constitution and not subject to Supreme Court review.
wouldn't you presume that it would be easier for minorities to get elected to their state legislatures than to the national one?
If so, they would have more choice in the selection of senators, not less.
There is a lot of gerrymandering in the states with redistricting and many minority votes are diluted in this manner. I wouldn't rely on courts to step in because they are overwhelmingly Republican appointees in the federal courts. These judges are going to let this continue.
Actually the implementation or repealing of any Federal Law. Especially Constitutional Amendments. Are always up to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. And Repealing a Voting law for federal representatives. That was granted by a US Constitutional Amendment. Falls right into the SCOTUS lap. You can't mess with the US Constitution, and not involve Th Supreme Court.
dbl post
Sigh. No, the Supreme Court does not get to rule on the constitutionality of Constitutional amendments.
Granted, they neutered the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th, have read the 11th in a not entirely straightforward fashion and have tried to stay away from the 10th as much as they could, but an amendment to the Constitution is, by definition, a part of the Constitution and constitutional by definition.
Steve is correct. The Constitution is not subject to review by the courts; it can only be interpreted. The SCOTUS cannot declare a portion of the Constitution as unconstitutional.
The Us Supreme Court can rule that any changes made to the Constitution are in fact constitutional or not. New Amendment proposals to the Constitution are not by default constitution. Before they are added and/or repealed/ replaced. They have to be in fact to be determined as Constitutional. Which is SCOTUS's job.
ok, I got nothing
Actually, there are two instances where they can:
There is nothing in the constitution that gives the SCOTUS the right to review any laws. Marbury v. Madison is the case that established that right. Assuming that it is good law since Congress took no action in over two centuries, it would be easy to overturn that case by constitutional amendment.
In regards to your two instances, the court would be interpreting the Constitution. If an amendment violates Article Five, then the amendment is still valid, but not as applied to a specific state that does not consent to reduction in representation. It is still an interpretation of the Constitution. The court has no power to rule on the substantive aspects of the amendment.
He is an alien plucked from the days of the first frontier, he no doubt would have been one of the soldiers who led the attacks on Native Americans, they come from the same mindset, the same cloth. He's on some kind of a supremist trip. They just lack the skills needed to negotiate and solve the Worlds' problems by compromise and agreeing to disagree as long as It's not hurting anyone. Too often we lose the opportunity to grow by settling disputes in violence. The World has seen too much violence. Our kids have played too many violent games. It's disgusting, and nobody wants to see it anymore. We want to watch Sesame St. or Romeo and Juliet fall in love, fighting is boring and gross, it is for boys. I'd rather read the writings of Martin Luther King or Ghandi any day of the week then watch another horrific scene from a war movie.
Repealing ANY amendment is like saying we need to return to the gold standard. It "appeals" to low IQ partisans, and never has a chance of happening.
Except the 18th, of course.
Flake ... believes the power to elect senators should be taken away from American voters.
Sure, as long as Republicans have the advantage in state legislatures.
Ummm... do the math. With the possibility that more than 25 states could be/are leaning Republican, what are the odds that repealing the 17th would give the GOP the majority in the Senate? At least with the current process, there's an outside chance a Democrat could be elected in a red state.
Well, have a look at why the 17th was introduced in the first place and you may see what they don't like about it.
A serious politician wouldn't even suggest this BULL____!
To return to the point Mike Paganucci made above, it's not just minority voters who are disenfranchised by gerrymandering - take my home state, MIchigan - we have two Democratic Senators, and have gone for the Dem. presidential candidates in the last 4 or 5 pres. elections. Clearly a majority of the state's residents have a preference for Democrats. Yet, through re-districting gerrymandering over the last two census cycles, our U.S. House delegation is heavily tilted toward the Pubs, and our legislature is solidly controlled by publicans. By putting the selection of U.S. Senators into the hands of a legislature unfairly tilted away from the people's actual preferences, they disenfranchise EVERYONE who wants to be represented by a Democrat (arguably, the majority of the population).
I, for one, am not at all put off about scrapping the 17th! It could make voters take more care in whom they voted into state legislatures. I really don't care either way.
At least the bribes would be local.
william jennings bryan was a proponent of the 17th amendment, famously known for his stance for fiat money, prohibition and anti-evolution. andrew johnson was too a proponent, known for his failure to promote the rights of Freedmen and subsequent impeachment.
This just helps in aiding them to buy seats and politicians, they like all the fringe benefits and the bonuses they are receiving from their true bosses their friendly Corporations. They help put their kids through college and help pay for those horses they like to dress up. Only the finest for the chosen few. Pay no attention to the cries of the poor children that they have left to their own devices. All they see in front of them is that handsome devil in the mirror and the quality of that new suit they're wearing not to mention the hot rods they collect. Ahhh, the sweet life ,Dear people, who are these poor people you so often refer to, pass me the dijon Buffy.
If you're that lackadaisical in your understanding of who your Senator is suppose to represent..."YOU" - it would seem to me you'd do just as well letting your neighbor decide. That way, you could skip voting altogether.
Most state legislators can't run their own state government - do other states want them collectively staffing our pool of U.S. Senators?
I sure don't.
Now just think about that for a minute: Public Campaign money for Senators no longer needed, The money could go directly from the bug bucks guys to the State Reps who do the choosing., Better yet, they could funnel all the money to a central fund for distribution to the state reps.
In this case, the majority party would determine who the recipients are. Minority party would have no say. The people who supplied the most money would also have a say, the biggest, in who gets it,. Probably without accountibililty.
No recourse if your Senator only serves nothing you expect of him and instead honors the money. (Well, that’s no change is it?)
The same Form Letters for all 100 Senators explaining their voting activities could be duplicated and save on printing costs. In fact, Senate votes could probably be eliminated entirely…since they would be required to vote the money source anyway. Regular letters of their job performance could then be mailed to each and every constituent in the US, since they would all be the same.
We’d know in advance how they’d vote, so even those letters could be liminated entirely Probably the number of lobbyists could be reduced, because the politicians would be bribed forward.
You’ve heard of taxation without representation, … This would be taxation with representaion with the added plus of no more annoying elections. I bet that would really eliminate that pesky voter fraud….
No??? Whaddya mean it would be worse than ever? Forrest Gump...Stupid is as stupid does.
Blue State Voter
I say the 17th stands.
IMO, instead of all the newbies in Congress trying to re-write the Constitution of These United States ....
Maybe they should be more concerned with "UPHOLDING" the laws laid out in this most revered piece of paperwork ever given to this nation by the founding fathers who based our entire government on it.
Hello, it doesn't fit into your framework of how YOU want it - so you just "do away with it"?
Not today bozo, beavis & butthead - Not today.